War would end if the older generation would stop pouring their flaming hateful, spiteful religious culture in the children's heads.Because the supposedly wise (but senile and warped) old people are incapable of seeing how they are perpetuating this silly fight over whose imaginary wizard promised what land to whom.

Those poor kids died because the old folk's brains are pure concrete, solid, unyielding masses incapable of a single original thought.

Old people are full of bullshiat. It's the younger generation's duty to reject the hatred.

shotglasss:Is it wrong of me to wish for the Israelis to be utterly and completely wiped out? Kill every Jew across the entire planet so that we no longer have to hear about how they're killing innocent muslim women and children. Level Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and every buillding within their border.

Would that end this madness?

If we toss in the muslims and evangelist christians absolutely. fark all these people and their jackoff retrograde desert death cults, fark them. fark ALL OF THEM. Get some nukes together and please kill as many of each other as possible, the rest of the species has stuff to do.

Y'all are seriously getting wound up about this when China (pop. 1.35 billion) is getting mad at Japan (pop. 127 million) over some islands, both China and Russia (143 million) are warning everyone to keep their hands off Iran (75 million) who is doubling down on their nuclear program and sending rockets and aid to Hamas, and Egypt (82 million) is getting in on that action too. Meanwhile India (1.2 billion) and Pakistan (181 million) are still fractious over Kashmir and Indonesia (237 million) is steadily being infiltrated by radical islamic elements.

What, do you think the good old USA (pop 314 million) can't just tell the other 6 billion people to settle down and keep their shiat in order?

Oh, right. There's that thing we have to worry about now. Paying for stuff that we want. Well, good luck with that.

Throughout the latest crisis western leaders, news readers, chat-show hosts and assorted pundits have focused on the "thousands" of rockets fired by Hamas.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is reported as saying: "There is no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel. We call on those responsible to stop these cowardly acts immediately in order to allow the situation to deescalate."

Cowardly acts? Who is the coward? Israel, which uses sophisticated state-of-the-art weaponry (courtesy of the US taxpayer) to relentlessly attack an unarmed, half-starved and densely packed population who have nowhere to run because their borders have been sealed 24/7 for 6 years, or the Gaza's guerrillas who fight back with anything that comes to hand including garden-shed rockets?

What if Hamas dumped all their rockets in the sea tomorrow? Would the illegal blockade be lifted? Would Gazans enjoy the same freedoms as other nations? Would their democratically elected government be allowed to get on and govern? Would they be able to open their sea port to foreign ships and rebuild and operate their airport? Would they be able to import and export and carry on trade and develop their economy and prosper like other countries?

Would they be allowed to develop and benefit from their offshore gas field? Would their fishermen be allowed to fish in unpolluted waters? Would their young people be able to come and go and take up places at foreign universities?

Would Israel clear out of Gaza's airspace permanently? Would the Israeli navy cease its piracy and stay out of Palestinian territorial waters? Would you and I be able to visit Gaza direct?

Fat chance. None of this would suit Israel. So Palestinians would be no better off.

ACallForPeace:indarwinsshadow: No, It's laughable and pathetic to read how accepted racism is on fark.

Try /pol/ sometime if you think this is bad.But yes, Fark has its share of white supremacists and racists, check any thread where police abuse minorities or Republicans are trying to defend their arguments.Fark is a US site and one half of our two party system is a far right nationalist racist party akin to the National Front in other countries. It's just a reflection of modern America.

flynn80:Cowardly acts? Who is the coward? Israel, which uses sophisticated state-of-the-art weaponry (courtesy of the US taxpayer) to relentlessly attack an unarmed, half-starved and densely packed population who have nowhere to run because their borders have been sealed 24/7 for 6 years, or the Gaza's guerrillas who fight back with anything that comes to hand including garden-shed rockets?

Oh look, another liar. Or at least another simple slogan-chanter repeating the lies of their intellectual betters without actually knowing what they're talking about.

thamike:HotIgneous Intruder: Tatsuma: Massive barrage of rockets happening right now in the south, and has been happening for about half an hour right now

Where, oh where, are all these rockets coming from? I mean, who built them and then brought them to Gaza? It's a shame the Israelis are too stupid to stop this activity. Or maybe they choose not to stop them, since is looks better to appear to be the innocent party.

Hamas doesn't even represent Gazans anyway. They're foreign, funded by Shi'ite Iran, and taking part in destroying a predominately Sunni population. They are an occupying force. Gazans would probably be relieved if Hamas was eradicated, rather than thrown around their necks like a noose by Israel, who only cares about money and land in this situation.

I suggest you look into the origins of Hamas. They may be currently supplied by external state actors, but it was started by Gazans.

flynn80:Throughout the latest crisis western leaders, news readers, chat-show hosts and assorted pundits have focused on the "thousands" of rockets fired by Hamas.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is reported as saying: "There is no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel. We call on those responsible to stop these cowardly acts immediately in order to allow the situation to deescalate."

Cowardly acts? Who is the coward? Israel, which uses sophisticated state-of-the-art weaponry (courtesy of the US taxpayer) to relentlessly attack an unarmed, half-starved and densely packed population who have nowhere to run because their borders have been sealed 24/7 for 6 years, or the Gaza's guerrillas who fight back with anything that comes to hand including garden-shed rockets?

What if Hamas dumped all their rockets in the sea tomorrow? Would the illegal blockade be lifted? Would Gazans enjoy the same freedoms as other nations? Would their democratically elected government be allowed to get on and govern? Would they be able to open their sea port to foreign ships and rebuild and operate their airport? Would they be able to import and export and carry on trade and develop their economy and prosper like other countries?

Would they be allowed to develop and benefit from their offshore gas field? Would their fishermen be allowed to fish in unpolluted waters? Would their young people be able to come and go and take up places at foreign universities?

Would Israel clear out of Gaza's airspace permanently? Would the Israeli navy cease its piracy and stay out of Palestinian territorial waters? Would you and I be able to visit Gaza direct?

Fat chance. None of this would suit Israel. So Palestinians would be no better off.

Mrtraveler01:shotglasss: I don't think Netanyahu dislikes Obama, but he does know that Obama will not help him out kiss his ass all the time like most Republican do and therefore cannot trust Obama.

FTFY

That's the real reason Bibi wanted Romney to win. Because Romney would just go along with whatever Bibi wanted him to (including invading Iran). Because Israel won't go to Iran without our help. Obama's win was a major setback for Bibi as he doesn't have a yes man in the US anymore.

Mrtraveler01:BigBooper: didn't read most of the Derp, so I'm sure this has been posted. But what do you think we would do if the drug cartels were firing rockets from Mexico into the United States?

If Mexico was occupied territory, you'd have a point.

IF GAZA WAS OCCUPIED TERRITORY, SO WOULD YOU.

Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in 2005. They have not built shiat in Gaza since then, do not run that strip of coastline towns (that's Hamas) and Gaza has borders to get legitimate (i.e. not war-making) supplies through with Egypt as well as Israel.

As far as Hamas' motivations here? Here's some lines from their Covenant:Article 13 There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer.Article 14 The liberation of Palestine is the personal duty of every Palestinian.Article 15 "The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim".It states the history of crusades into Muslim lands and says the "Palestinian problem is a religious problem".Article 22 Makes sweeping claims about Jewish influence and power. (just like some people in these threads, imagine that)Article 28 Conspiracy indictment against "Israel, Judaism and Jews."

Israel builds/allows to be built the settlements that piss everyone (including me) off way over on the other side of their nation in the West Bank, bordering Jordan, which is not part of Israel though as it was a part of Jordan prior to the 6 Days War in 1967, but Jordan doesn't want it back: "In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization...."

/if you're going to be all anti-Israel at least bother learning a few facts

Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in 2005. They have not built shiat in Gaza since then, do not run that strip of coastline towns (that's Hamas) and Gaza has borders to get legitimate (i.e. not war-making) supplies through with Egypt as well as Israel.

Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza in 2005. They have not built shiat in Gaza since then, do not run that strip of coastline towns (that's Hamas) and Gaza has borders to get legitimate (i.e. not war-making) supplies through with Egypt as well as Israel.

...so you're arguing the conflict is of an international nature?

Essentially, yes. But, since I know where you're probably going with that, it doesn't mean that the leadership in Gaza has to be taken seriously until they stop announcing their desire to wipe out Israel:

This is why Hamas is considered a terrorist organization... that and the 2500+ rockets that have been fired at Israel from Gaza since the last time Israel tried talking to them seriously.

But you either knew this already or choose to ignore it so you can justify despising Israel some more ('cause I've been watching your posts, it's pretty obvious). How Israel acts in the West Bank is one story - how they respond to a government that refuses their right to exist and daily tries to kill as many Israeli citizens as luck will allow is something else.

thamike:quietwalker: Evaluate both sides with identical criteria, and there is no way in which Hamas is not the primary aggressor, in which the burden of guilt and responsibility does not lie primarily with them. Sadly, this also means they are the side which has the power to produce peace. In any real way, what happens next is up to them. The fact that this war is continuing is because they want it to.

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Is not peace. And neither fighting side is interested in peace. One side wants proprietary rights, and the other wants equality, statehood, and at least regional credibility. I don't even need to get into religion to see that these two interests, pitched against one another, can never lead to peace. Only a madman or a con man would be able to say so with a straight face.

Except that's not really what I said, and that's not really what the sides want.

One side has declared openly that it wants to avoid having 1/5'th of its citizens living under fear of daily attack. The other side has declared openly that it wants the dissolution of the zionist state via the mechanism of killing every israeli citizen.

One side has played the land-for-peace game for decades, attempting to literally buy peace for their people, while the other side has used those gains to advance their weaponry emplacements, allowing better attack ranges.

If I were to guess, I'd say that both sides really wish that everyone on the other side was wiped out, and one of those sides is really committed to that path, while the other - who appears capable of it - chooses not to, despite the additional hardships and danger that results.

Could you pick out which side was which? If you could, you can understand enough to know that between these two, based only on historical precedent and spoken declarations, one side desires peace and the other abhors it. One side will apparently embrace it if it is offered - even if the speaker has proven untrustworthy - and has worked for peace in the past, not just paid it lip service.

Disambiguation aside, you can say a lot of things about Hamas, but you'd be stretching the imagination to include 'working for peace' in there. If you can't have peace until both groups actually want it, then this situation is waiting on the palestinians to get there. Just like it has been for the last couple of decades.

that bosnian sniper:quietwalker: Evaluate both sides with identical criteria, and there is no way in which Hamas is not the primary aggressor, in which the burden of guilt and responsibility does not lie primarily with them.

You understand the whole idea that in an asymmetric conflict, "both sides" cannot and should not be judged by identical criteria, right?

Asymmetric warfare as a concept says little about how you judge it. Only that it refers to two groups with dissimilar capabilities.

I stand by the idea that if you judge the two differently, you are a hypocrite, and potentially a racist to boot. Pick a conflict and side you favor, and if you say one side is justified to commit atrocities while the other is not, well, you're just wrong. Race is easy, so lets use some examples of this type of thinking:- It's okay to take land from them, they're ignorant indians- Black people don't deserve the same privileges as whites because they're inferior people- Jews are mentally inferior, liars, and cowards, so we're putting them in camps for their own good.

Case in point, Tatsuma's own statistics: over 600 rocket strikes have killed three Israelis, two indirectly, and a hundred of those didn't even make it to Israeli territory. Of the rest, Israeli missile defense took most of those out with the few that made it through being ineffectual.

"Your honor, my client only tried to kill the complainant's family 600 times, and because his technology was so poor, he only succeeded 3 times. In fact, because of decades of these attacks, the complainant has built bunkers and deployed technology that makes it even harder - so you can see, he was perfectly justified."

You're telling me from that, Israel is not only justified in employing massive retaliation (over a thousand air strikes so far targeting critical infrastructure with the promise of a follow-up ground invasion and occupation) but has an ethical mandate to do so?

Except that they're not targeting critical infrastructure. They're targeting critical munitions, military leaders, military communications, etc. They've been very proud of their ability to hit rocket emplacements in residential neighborhoods or next to mosques or playgrounds, with very little collateral damage. At the same time, they're rolling in aid trucks, removing the wounded, actively repairing the electrical grid while being shot at, and so on.

They're trying to destroy the ability for these people to attempt to kill israelis, after repeated attempts to kill israelis.

That's a fundamentally out-of-whack perspective, especially when the stated means and goals of asymmetric warfare, i.e. terrorism, is to provoke a massive retaliation that saps economic resources, popular support, and credibility in the international community while simultaneously justifying the 'terrorists' own means and goals and increasing popular support.

The goal of terrorism isn't some weird tom-clancy para-social-psychology. It's to get what you want through fear. You don't think that some terrorist leader was rubbing his hands together and cackling, saying "Ha, and after this plan goes through, they'll make their OWN PEOPLE take off their shoes at the airport! HAHAHAHAHAHAA!"

There's spinning for the media, sure, but that's not the goal, and again, that's not how the term 'asymmetrical warefare' is used. Seriously. Check wikipedia or something.

In short, Israel is playing right into Hamas' hands. Israel's own massive retaliation doctrine justifies Hamas and its actions to Palestinians living in Gaza and perpetuates the cycle of conflict. This is particularly poignant in light of the fact Israel's own anti-missile defenses have been demonstrated in this very conflict to trivialize Hamas' most-destructive form of attack. Without inquiring or presuming of the ideology and goals of Netanyahu, Likud, or the Israeli right wing, why would you support Israel being willfully and intentionally manipulated by Hamas so?

That's silly, true, and unrelated, respectively.

If I attempt to kill someone and fail, should it be seen as less serious simply because that person defended themselves?If I attempt to kill unarmed civilians and succeed, should it be seen as justified because their country could/can/will easily kill me in response?

I do not think I'll ever be able to relate to your world view. A group that eschews peace, desires genocide, kidnaps, suicide bombs, and attacks civilians simply plays on a less morally and ethically defensible platform as a group of people who have attempted peace, who attack to destroy weapons and military leaders, who avoid civilian causalities.

There is no level of sophistry that can confuse that, that can make things like theft of property equal to death of uninvolved civilians.

quietwalker:Asymmetric warfare as a concept says little about how you judge it [...] There is no level of sophistry that can confuse that, that can make things like theft of property equal to death of uninvolved civilians.

First, I'd strongly suggest you do some in-depth reading about asymmetric warfare, terror, and its goals and means. In short, yes, there is a very strong political speech aspect to terror, symbolic and literal, and strategic logic in play behind the execution of asymmetric warfare and terror. To what you refer as "some weird tom-clancy para-social-psychology" very much is the point, and that is the consensus view among anyone who is remotely credible on the topic of terror, its goals and means; no, right wing pundits and politicians are not credible and authoritative sources in this regard. Dying to Win: the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terror by Robert A. Pape, in which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is heavily discussed, and Al Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror by Jason Burke would be good starters.

Second, no, I have never stated Hamas' actions are morally or ethically justified. Strategically, most definitely, but not morally or ethically. If you can't tell the difference between strategy and morality, that's your problem.

And, in regards to what Israelis are targeting, I wasn't aware that TV stations, journalists, and municipal buildings were military targets. As far as humanitarian aid and relief, I'll need to see a third-party, credible citation, please. Where, exactly, is the sense of proportionality and military necessity here, both of which are critical foundations to waging a just war? If you want to make an argument Israeli military actions are justifiable here -- strategically, ethically, or morally -- "they're shooting rockets at us!" is wholly insufficient, especially considering the sheer scale of Israeli action.